[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:55:56 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 26/26] uprobes: queue signals while
thread is singlestepping.
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> [2011-10-07 18:58:28]:
>
> Agreed, this looks much, much better. In both cases the task is current,
> it is safe to change ->blocked.
>
> But please avoid sigprocmask(), we have set_current_blocked().
Sure, I will use set_current_blocked().
While we are here, do you suggest I re-use current->saved_sigmask and
hence use set_restore_sigmask() while resetting the sigmask?
I see saved_sigmask being used just before task sleeps and restored when
task is scheduled back. So I dont see a case where using saved_sigmask
in uprobes could conflict with its current usage.
However if you prefer we use a different sigmask to save and restore, I
can make it part of the utask structure.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists